Who was the Greatest Emperor in South Asian History?

[INDIC]

I can't do it
It's like arguing with a chimp.... no that's an insult to a chimp, it's like arguing with a rock.

Are you seriously this retarded?

I can realize what's in your mind.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

Uncle Aurangzeb bankrupted the empire in useless wars, the Deccan campaign was to the Mughal empire what Afghanistan was to the Soviets, Marathas were just too good in guerrilla warfare.

Uncle Aurangzeb bankrupted the empire in useless wars, the Deccan campaign was to the Mughal empire what Afghanistan was to the Soviets, Marathas were just too good in guerrilla warfare.

 

[LURKER]

Aurangzeb laid the foundaion of decline of Mughal empire by his religious fantaticism and wreckless wars , but ofcourse some of our neighbouring friends will see a hero in any fanatic that persecutes people on their religion .

 

[Pboy]

Chandragupta Maurya winning the voting

Never read his history, will do now.

 

[jayron]

Chandragupta Maurya anyday. I am surprised aurangzeb got so many votes, that guy was just a short sighted religious fanatic.

That's probably why he got so many votes.

 

[Slayer786]

To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.

Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly.


Source: Wikileaks

 

[ghaja]

Top 9 Emperors of India:
Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire: 4th century BC

Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire: 3rd century BC

Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the Gupta Empire: 5th century

Harsha Vardhana: 7th century

Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire: 9th century

Dharmapala of the Pala Dynasty: 8th century

Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire: 11th century

Akbar of the Mughal Empire: 16th century

Chhatrapati Shahu of the Maratha Empire: 18th century

 

[niaz]

Top 9 Emperors of India:
Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire: 4th century BC

Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire: 3rd century BC

Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the Gupta Empire: 5th century

Harsha Vardhana: 7th century

Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire: 9th century

Dharmapala of the Pala Dynasty: 8th century

Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire: 11th century

Akbar of the Mughal Empire: 16th century

Chhatrapati Shahu of the Maratha Empire: 18th century

I have only two comments.

1. Grandson of Shivaji ‘Shahu’ aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.

Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn’t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb’s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.

2. It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone “Great”. Historians have however added “the Great” to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.

 

[Vinod2070]

To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.

Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly.


Source: Wikileaks

The Mughal power had substantially decline during Aurangzeb's time and what happened afterwards was just inevitable.

The Mughals had become paupers in the end due to his wars in the Deccan. Some contemporary foreigners have commented on the poor condition of his war carvan versus in earlier times (like Jehangir).

They didn't even have proper utensils and shoes during the latter part of the Deccan campaign.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.

Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly.


Source: Wikileaks

I went through wikileaks cables, could find any of the above.

Please provide the link

 

[ExtraOdinary]

To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.

Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly.


Source: Wikileaks

Being a pious muslim or a conqueror does'nt make someone a great emperor. An emperor becomes great when he is respected by his subjects (irrespective of religion) and by his enemies. That is what determines how the history remembers him.
There is a reason why Sher Shah Suri is also widely revered in India.

 

[Contrarian]

To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.

Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly.


Source: Wikileaks

It was because of Aurangzeb that the Mughal dynasty ended. He sowed the seeds of destruction.
He was given in his hand a strong empire with a great army and great finances.

He overstretched his army, made enemies where peace could be made. Those enemies among others literally bankrupted his empire.
He died leaving a shadow of the glory that the Mughal Empire was - in terms of territory it was big, but it was hollow.

He can not even begin to be compared with Akbar, the reason why Mughal empire lasted as long as it did. He struck the alliances, the administrative machinery, the control mechanisms, the financial systems that made Mughal empire entrenched in India.

Aurangzeb does not even come close to Akbar.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

I recently read Discovery of India by Nehru in which he states that though the Marathas were fiercely nationalistic, they were somewhat ignorant of the happenings around the world and lacked vision. They also harrassed the rajputs and the sikhs hence losing potential allies.

 

[Contrarian]

I have only two comments.

1. Grandson of Shivaji ‘Shahu’ aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.

Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn’t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb’s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.

2. It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone “Great”. Historians have however added “the Great” to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.

Completely agree with each of the statements. However I would personally vote for Chandragupta Maurya simply because he ran such a huge empire hundreds of years before the others, when technology was crude.

 

[ghaja]

I have only two comments.

1. Grandson of Shivaji ‘Shahu’ aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.

Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn’t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb’s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.

2. It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone “Great”. Historians have however added “the Great” to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.

Actually the Afghan army had the superior number and thats the reason why they were able to
defeat the Maratha army. But the Marathas recovered after the battle of Panipat and
reconquered the major part of northern India under Shinde and Madhavrao.
I chose Shahu because he was a great ruler. He selected his generals because of their ability and
not based on origin or caste. A lot of his generals were from the lower caste like Shinde or Holkar.